Being that I've never owned the 28/2.8, 55/1.2, 35/2,
or 35-80/2.8 I am going by heresay for those lenses.
The 90mm is a super lens all the way around and I
strongly suggest you keep it. I am a bit puzzled by
your negative reaction to the 35/2 since from what
I've read on the list its a super lens. I would agree
the 28/2.8 might have problems since there seems to be
a wide variation between samples (lots of people don't
like this lens but then lots do) The 55/1.2 is
suposedly a nice sharp lens but it does have bad
vignetting wide open or so I've heard. The 50/1.4 is
another lens that is all over the board in reviews,
may I ask what SN it is? Lenses with <1,000,000 are
consistently a lot better than ones with less and most
early ones are very bad wide open (although I have an
early sivernose that DOES perform well, a little soft
wide open but otherwise OK.
You might want to part with these lenses if you don't
like them and the 35-80/2.8 will step in. I would get
(and this is just a suggestion.) A 24/2.8 for a
superwide angle replacement to the 28mm and a 50/1.8
Zuiko (or a 50/1.2 if you want to spend a lot more) as
the 1.8 apeture is nice and fast for low light and the
50/1.2 seems to get consistently rave reviews as the
best normal 50mm Zuiko.
You have a good collection. The 4ti has the wonderful
spot meter and is a very solid but small and
lightweight camera. The 35-80 and 90mm two wonderful
lenses. If you wanted to expand your choices I woud
get a superwide like the 24mm or a 21mm. I would also
try to get a telephoto lens like the 200/4 or f5 or
the 300/4.5. There are also plenty of nicer zooms in
the telephoto range like a Vivtar S1 70-210 or Zuiko
85-250/5, 65-200/4 or 50-250/5. Expect to pay much
higher prices for the Zuiko zooms of course.
Also if you are using a tripod with timer and such you
should also hold the camera with your hands to further
reduce internal vibration. The lenses that looked bad
might have looked that way due to their lighter weight
and increased internal vibration as a result while the
heavier 90 and 35-80 dampened vibration. Just a
theory.
Hope this helps.
Mark Lloyd
--- Thomas Mueller <thomu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear Zuikoholics,
>
> well, I am still new in the Zuiko field and I came
> to it rather by chance.
> I am still not secure about using my Om4Ti and I am
> not sure what the
> quality and potential use of the lenses is.
>
> So, I did a lens test by photographing a newspaper
> from tripod with timer
> release to reduce vibrations. And I was a bit
> disappointed about the
> performance of my lenses at wide aperture with
> respect to sharpness,
> contrast and vignetting. This was true for the
> 2,8/28 (MC, Japan written
> inside filter ring), 2,0/35 (MC, Japan), 1,2/55
> (probably not the rare
> earth version), 1,4/50 (MC, Japan). They were all
> okay after stopping them
> down by two fstops. But, what is the wide aperture
> good for if not to use
> it, that is my current feeling. The only exceptions
> were the 2,8/35-80 and
> the 2,0/90 which were brilliant even wide open.
>
>
> Maybe, you guys can share your opinion about the use
> and fascination of the
> OM system with me to make me feel a bit more happy
> and confident about what
> I can and what I can not do with it.
>
>
> Gruesse, Thomas
>
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing
> List >
> < For questions,
> mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page:
> http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|